click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22
to throw some sort of bob. people like john kerry are completely incapable of helping the pentagon deal with this problem, even that problem. led of the on the problem that is going to occur. the other candidates for leadership of the pentagon to be it through this era, a very smart -- no background in any of these issues. the other candidates is ashton carter. he is perceived as a good manager. if you look at his job on the f 35 i simply cannot agree. he is not picking on the fundamental efforts of problem represents. he let it float to the future and it is going to face a phase in this, even in the sequestered scenario, it will do nothing but increase the cost on airplane which is a disappointment in terms of performance and that is a result of his management. i don't see him as a competent candidate to lead the pentagon through this future, thank you very much. >> thank you, winslow wheeler. our final speakerheather hurl r hurlbert is, prolific author, former speech writer and has been very active in national defense issues. >> thank you. i want to apologize for being late. talking
house in order. or begin that process. it's argued by the pentagon leaders that the military sequester would be crippling and would endanger national security. and, of course, the aerospace industries argue that there will be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs lost if the sequester were enforced. there's another way to look at the military sequester, which is what our panel is organized to do. and especially if you conclude, as do some of us, as do i, that the defense department is excessively large, riddled with inefficiency and subject to the corrupting influence of the defense industry. president obama believes that it is time to end our wars and to do nation building at home. the sequester, feared by many, could be, however, a way of opening the door to nation building. of ourselves. by shifting resources from defense to domestic needs. as we saw in the disasters of katrina and sandy, our infrastructure needs alone are enormous. whether as a result of horrendous storms or not. to cite just a few, the cost of repairing and replacing our water system -- dams, lev
taxes and entitlements and non-defense discretionary are such that pentagon describes this -- the president does. he will instruct the secretary of defense as to what the deal is and the secretary of defense will -- they want to resign, more power to them. but they will come and present a budget after the budget deal is done where they basically do what they are told. >> yes. >> i have a question. first, president obama says we can have a national ability and the chairman, you mentioned it too. how could you saves money you don't have? where is the money coming from? the second is there was mention -- defense spending. anybody know how much in terms of defense spending and should we talk about that to deal with it? the third question -- the world is changing. i think we have a new defense strategy. once you have a strategy you will know what kind of leadership you can have and what kind of armed forces you have and also defense technology. should we have discussion about this defense strategy? >> a couple thoughts. you say how do we invest domestic affairs, money we do
were. >> the other thing and i'm hesitant to bring up the pentagon in this new cycle, but "don't ask, don't tell" with historic and hateful lies not in this our boats, but we still have to remember that our men and women who fight and die for this country's total to equal benefits. they're still long way to go in this country at the receipts to equal benefit in issues of i.d. cards and base housing in partnership with the and a whole host of things that is important progress we still need to make a flawless service, something that is not an right now a discussion, something important and needs to be addressed. and i say that because all of the things that we talk about, we talk about politics and the numbers and victories and not so many losses this time. at the end of the day there are real live people. it's not often you can pass a law that there's actually real-life people immediately contacted and feel that. right now in this country, the vast majority of people that in places where they are treated as second-class citizens. a young people growing up in america today if you look
is for blood pressure checks but i'm about ready to set one here at the pentagon. it was not a relationship after he nominated me to the president to be ob the chairman. but over the course of time because we both worked at it very hard you can develop that trusting relationship. and so i think empathy for what his position was as a political appoint tee a senior civilian in the department of defense and all the responsibility he has and like wise having to respect what my responsibilities are and why they're different from his. so v.m.i.. how do we pick this person? >> you just took mine integrity. very intact sir. >> say more about that. >> as a leader the people who you work for and work for as well if you lose your baring their going to draw off of that. and the same thing you constantly work with people and have you to have tact and know when to give them a swift kick in the but or a hug. >> you've learned a lot already because some need a kick and some need a hug. that's excellent. bearing in tact, i havent thought about it in those terms. but a leader has to be disciplined because yo
this sort of papa. this is very seductive if you're in the pentagon you have this list of individuals plotting against the united states. if you come across these names off the list makes it feel as though you keep the united states safer. i think there's a faulty logic going on in there. we've seen over the past decade the u.s. is fighting wars that just killing these particular individuals is in itself make us safer because so often many more people, put in the ranks. there's also a tendency to personalize al qaeda appeared particularly in yemen we saw this with the american-born cleric, the individual that the argument was advanced that if he could be killed the u.s. would be safer. he was as close killed in the drone strike and said number 2011. we know they had a plan in which they gave the latest version thankfully to an undercover agent. so not on where a lackey hasn't crossed list we talk about ibrahim sharqieh were all worried about. there's a couple important things to remember. one, abdu rabu mansour hadi wasn't a member of al qaeda. this is an individual radical license. t
.c. it takes place in cia headquarters of the pentagon and the white house. so it's funny for me to be writing a story about a military operation were 90% of the story takes place in washington d.c. but that is what the story actually unfolded. today, unique among presidents of the united states, president obama is almost daily giving a dossier on the targeted. this is someone who's in the crosshairs of the cia or the military and obama for direct or petraeus how to make a decision about whether to shoot at a target, whether to take that person out. i know presidents have to make critically important decision affecting thousands and hundreds of thousands of lives throughout the history of this country. but it seems to me to be a new development for the president at the united states to be decided on individual targets around the world on a regular basis. i think that is probably one of the most unique developments in modern war and kind of defines right at the nature of this war that we're fighting. obama, when he said that he was willing to personally take up arms against al qaeda is now quit
, learning more about questions about him, and the pentagon investigation, alleged behavior. does the president have faith that general can continue to lead the war in afghanistan during this critical period of time while under investigation? >> i can tell you that the president thinks very highly of general allen and his service to the country as well as the job he's done in afghanistan. at the request of the secretary of defense, the president put on hold general allen's nomination as supreme allied commander of europe pending the investigation of general allen's conduct by the department of defense ig. the president remains focused on fully supporting our troops and partners in afghanistan that general allen led so ably for over a year. the president nominated general dunford to be the next commander of isaf reiterating comments that they should act swiftly to confirm him. >> accurate to say the president has full faith in general allen? >> he has faith in general allen, believes he's doing and has done an excellent job at isaf, and i refer you to the pentagon for the process u
the pentagon in this particular news cycle, but "don't ask, don't tell," it was historic that was passed in eufaula is not removed from our books, but we still have to remember that our men and women who fight in the this country's total have equal benefits. if so why long ways to go as it relates to equal benefits and issues of i.d. cards and base housing partnership in the face and a whole host of big that is important progress we still need to make as well as service and the something that is not even a discussion, but something important and needs to be addressed. i say that because all the things we talk about. we talk about politics on them or send victories and not so many losses this time. but at the end of the day, they are real life people. it's not often you can pass a law that is actually real life people immediately impact getting killed. right now in this country come the best majority people live in places where they are treated as second-class citizens in a young person growing in america today, if you look at the three places or people spend most of their time, home scho
'ath, a pentagon staff talk more than they should about what happens. i don't think anyone gave away national secrets but they did deliver misinformation credit characterize the seal rate as the intense firefight. it wasn't. the seals were fired upon one's. they returned fire, the guy who shot at them died. after that there was no more shooting. going to the house room by room in the adult male were sealed once they were fired upon. they cannot wait so they went through the house shot to every adult male in-house accidentally shot the wife of of one of the men. to characterize that to wac people the firefight is a stretch. reflecting animus toward bin laden he had been the big life of luxury, i don't know about you but as somebody locked me in a house with 12 children and the three wives, five years, i would not call that looks serious. apparently the wives did not get along well. you can accuse bin laden of many things that he would never go for the good life. he did not have air-conditioning, refrigerat ors comment he saw himself as a holy warrior living a life in preparation to go to the h
, actually, to a private sector led economy, reintegrate ourselves with pentagon into central asia, we don't see much progress in this front, and on the issue of transition to the security responsibility to the afghans, really, to take speedometer of the fight up on themselves because there is no shortage of courage or skill in afghan. the afghan should be fighting the fight themselves. u.s. should get out of the combat role in afghanistan. that's good for afghanistan and the u.s., and also, it makes limited use presence in afghanistan sustainable if no u.s. soldier dying in afghanistan. therefore, in this front also, there's not many progress or cooperation by friends in pakistan. we very much would like, actually, the afghan people, particularly the government, see improvement on that. just to end on very short comments on what some of the distinguished panelists have mentioned, i totally expect that the issue of not having any evidence on bin laden be in islamabad. hard to imagine someone hiding in west point in the united states and in a businessman, friewntly speak the language, that
to bring his pentagon into this particular new cycle but "don't ask don't tell" its historic. "don't ask don't tell" was passed but we still have to remember that our men and women who fight and die for this country, they still don't have equal benefits. there's still a long ways to go in this country as it relates to equal benefits and issues of i.d. cards and base housing in partnership benefits and a whole host of things. its important progress that we still need to make as well as transgender service, something that is not even right now discussion but it's something that's important and needs to be addressed. you know i say that because all these things we talk about, we talk about the politics and the numbers in the victories and not so many losses. but at at the end of the day there are real-life people. it's not often that we pass a law that there are real-life people who are immediately impacted and feel that. but right now in this country, the vast majority of people live in places where they are treated as second-class citizens in a young person growing up in america today, if
a said on a number of occasions, the pentagon, the intelligence community believe that this legislation is vitally to the safety and security of our country. so before thanksgiving, we're going to finish the sports men's bill, we're going to have -- the republicans need to kill the cybersecurity bill. they've been following the lead of the chamber of commerce, which is an arm of the republican party anymore. it is just a front for the republican party. they spend huge amounts of money that they get from unknown sources to defeat democrats. they wasted their money this time, but that's the way it is. they are opposing this bill for not any logical reason. then we -- senator levin and mccain have asked to go to defense authorization. i think if this bill is as important as they say it is -- and they say it is important; i know how senator levin and senator mccain feel about it -- looks like they would clear away some of this stuff that's getting in the way. but that's where we are. i think it is religionly a bridge too far to complete the defense authorization bill before we leave but we
that was -- that was and is most important that sends the money to the pentagon was just killed, and that's cybersecurity. mr. president, i have had a number of people come to me during the day and said are you going to allow relevant amendments on this? i said sure. they said how about five? i said fine. but, mr. president, whatever we do on this bill, it's not enough for the chamber of commerce, not enough. so everyone should understand cybersecurity is dead for this congress. what an unfortunate thing, but that's the way it is. the sportsman's bill, mr. president, i filed cloture on this bill yesterday. unless we can agree to a limited number of amendments, we'll have cloture vote on the bill early tomorrow morning, probably around 9:00. if we get cloture, there will be a potential 30 hours for debate. under the rules as we all know too well. i have been told that some on the other side also plans to make a budget act point of order against the sportsman's bill. we have members representing the states of new york and new jersey who are going to be in their states tomorrow because of the tremendous damage
general woodard who is assigned to air force safety here at the pentagon. .. they visited basic military training at san antonio lackwit, for technical training bases. the officer training school at maxwell air force base in alabama. and the u.s. army's basic combat training at fort jackson in south carolina. additionally, the team conferred figures responsible for u.s. navy and marine corps basic training. the one to express my deepest appreciation to general woodward and a team for a job extremely well done. the 22 findings and 46 recommendations of the report accurately reflect the deficiencies in her basic military training program to provide effect their proposals. i intend to implement 45 of the 46 recommendations. we distributed copies of the directives investigation as the lesser part i prepared for the secretary of the air force with my review of the corrective measures i'm putting in place. i do not intend to cover is a report in this afternoon as our time is limited and i want to be as responsive as possible to your questions. that said there are a few points i want to make yo
. >> if you go over the fiscal cliff you also get another roughly $600 billion in savings from the pentagon, military spending. what is your own view about whether or not this country and its government should be prepared to go beyond the 487 billion the president initially targeted in terms of reductions in defense spending and go further, something closer to that 600 billion figure? >> well, i do think there are additional savings to be made in defense spending. as you indicated we did $487 billion in reductions as part of the original budget control act, and it's important to be clear that those reductions were reduction from projected increase. it wasn't a reduction from the baseline. if you go off the fiscal cliff, it's about another $500 billion. simpson-bowles, essential had as much savings and defense as if he went over the fiscal cliff. they have another 500 billion simpson-bowles what's also important to them so that was part of the simpson-bowles framework. first of all, this of course is just in a responsible way to deal with cuts, whether defense or nondefense because it gets a
was in the united states last january he specifically wanted to pay a visit to the pentagon, which he did. so it indicates that xi i is not necessary just to himself from this kind of relationship. you may even see a kind of value added and identifying with it. at the way that china is trying to improve its advantage, if you will, is to present itself as a much more credible force in this context. now, with -- would've xi jinping be prepared to risk a major downturn in the u.s.-china relationship for all the reasons have been noted? i doubt this very, very seriously. but china has its date certain kind of claims that could very well we configured the regional environment for years to come, or at least enables china in its own estimation to better protect and assert its interests. so the question for the longer-term is how does the united states choose to react and respond. this is among the operative questions it seems to me that the obama administration is going to face in coming years. thank you very much for your time. [applause] >> so my second role is to be a discussed in bashing discuss
-tightening mode, it's important to keep in mind it's not just the pentagon that has not done things very cost effectively. i'm a big fan of the recent health care reform, but it was, you know, one of its strong points was not cost containment. and in addition, the cost containment measures that were there were not viewed as credible. and so that was a political decision, and partly it was a function of how it was done. and, you know, again i'm being cynical. i say the republicans, it's not so much that -- you know, republicans are not a monolith although they're closer than democrats, but some republicans genuinely don't want to increase taxes on the middle class and don't want a double dip recession. but the way that the party, the revealed preferences of the party in recent years has been they're much more concerned about the wealthy, you know, tan they are about these things -- than they are about these things. the democrats, so we are told now, i mean, it's a bargaining position. you know, the president has gone all out saying one thing they really want out of this is tax increases, you k
think all of the forces in the pentagon and the white house and probably the state department believed that saddam hussein had been so fatally weakened in 1991 that he could never survive. as it turned out in fact that the essential forces of the republican guard and of his command and control structure had survived and as we saw with the slaughter of the shi'ites very shortly thereafter he was able to maintain his repressive regime. the question you directly asked me, should we have gone into baghdad? that would have been hard to do. that wasn't what the coalition had been formed to do. i doesn't -- he said dafle, say in the book we should have gone into baghdad. but i think the situation was badly misread and clearly it would have been better for the world, i think, had saddam hussein been sufficiently weakened so that his regime could have been toppled from within if only that. >> let me ask you about the war in iraq. as someone who asks others about this in your job -- >> this war now. >> this war now, and it's entirely up to you, do you feel strongly about the war one way or the o
're helpless. on wednesday i was at the pentagon, i was lucky enough to be there when a colleague of mine, technical sergeant joe delauria, he got a silver star for his actions in afghanistan. he was clearing a landing zone, there was a marine that had been hurt. they called in the medevac helicopter comes in, he's trying to clear the area to make sure the helicopter's not going to land on an ied. he steps on one. he lost both legs and his left arm, okay? so when i say i am lucky and i had an average experience, you know, joe was my reference. i don't want to speak for joe. he might tell you that he was lucky. he had good people that put three tourniquets on him and got him through it okay. we have a memorial down in the the -- down in florida where all the eod techs go to school. everybody that died in the line of duty since world war ii, essentially, since the school opened. so we put more names on the memorial last year than we have put on since 1945. and all told since 9/11, it's 120. now, 120, you know, that number might feel low compared to the thousands that we have lost overall, a
from the lack of oversight. all health research should be moved out of the pentagon. i anders stand that history with 10 stevens starting bad. then ultimately he was against special health research and the pentagon because i am all flows of revs -- breast cancer research. why in the pentagon? one of the leading scientists were wrapped roosevelt the day to make major breakthroughs we cannot trust snack but it does not get look dapper go there is inertia and now we have a prostate program. it should be about things that affect troops directly with the infectious aziz's. >> besides the audits. >> we also go legislate properly on the flora to have a winning position to have a chance to change that would benefit the country in the long run verses the protocol process this is just a small part. . .
the pentagon and all the men and women in uniform who serve us so well as to the policies of the united states. i know i'll work with my colleague from alabama to see that accomplished. mr. president, i come back to the senate floor today as i have on many occasions to urge all of us to take action on a spool that's -- policy that's bipartisan, in its support and ramification. that is the production tax credit for wind energy. we need to renew that production tax credit. it's encouraged billions of dollars in investment and helped create tens of thousands of good-paying moobs across our country -- american jobs across our country. but i have to tell your our inaction here is jeopardizing the future of what's really a promising industry. we've literally over the last months seen wind industry jobs in the thousands disappear. that's not a statistic, not just a statement, those jobs affected real americans. and these job losses were completely preventible. and it's time for us to get back to work and extend the production tax credit so that our wind energy industry can also get back to work. and
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22